Note: Citations are based on reference standards. However, formatting rules can vary widely between applications and fields of interest or study. The specific requirements or preferences of your reviewing publisher, classroom teacher, institution or organization should be applied.

When the New York Times published an advertisement that accused Alabama officials of willfully abusing civil rights activists, Montgomery police commissioner Lester Sullivan filed suit for defamation. Alabama courts, citing factual errors in the ad, ordered the Times to pay half a million dollars in damages. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court, which had previously deferred to the states on libel issues. The justices, recognizing that Alabama's application of libel law threatened both the nation's free press and equal rights for African Americans, unanimously sided with the Times. The decision introduced a new First Amendment test: a public official cannot recover damages for libel unless he proves that the statement was made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.-Publisher description.Read more...

A place in time --
"Lies, lies, lies" --
Trial by jury --
"Let 'em see the dogs work" --
The road to the Alabama Supreme Court --
A new game plan --
Briefing the court --
"May it please the court" --
"Uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

Abstract:

Two of America's foremost legal historians illuminate the 1964 Supreme Court case that pitted Alabama segregationists against the New York Times and its critical depiction of the Deep South at the height of the Civil Rights Movement.Read more...

"When the New York Times published an advertisement that accused Alabama officials of willfully abusing civil rights activists, Montgomery police commissioner Lester Sullivan filed suit for defamation. Alabama courts, citing factual errors in the ad, ordered the Times to pay half a million dollars in damages. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court, which had previously deferred to the states on libel issues. The justices, recognizing that Alabama's application of libel law threatened both the nation's free press and equal rights for African Americans, unanimously sided with the Times. The decision introduced a new First Amendment test: a public official cannot recover damages for libel unless he proves that the statement was made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.-Publisher description."@en

"A place in time -- "Lies, lies, lies" -- Trial by jury -- "Let 'em see the dogs work" -- The road to the Alabama Supreme Court -- A new game plan -- Briefing the court -- "May it please the court" -- "Uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.""@en